IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Fri, 06 September 2019 22:19 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spring@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55733120E08; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=steffann.nl
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1orUHQKcgObD; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B22E0120DFA; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D29E4B; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 00:19:51 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=steffann.nl; h= references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:date:date :in-reply-to:x-mailer:from:from:subject:subject:mime-version :content-type:content-type:received:received; s=mail; t= 1567808389; bh=W2ncv2HBNqyrKvnmqkrcsTUYwjHee2Umo6ilNZAdiJA=; b=P xdGIebKWSdbX1SSBV5oK/1lPN0aXFmV3NAMSVDH4IGtvzTU01yCnqkP27dBStN44 WGhYa2MK+Si1aDYaN303jMsIYCiOMwp0duFWUEtLJm56VokiyOerMS5UFJUOskww nZNtDtU7ChJYgGde+RP4ffEoxbWaOuTd0pjHRWLYQ4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id alJYJpKYHook; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 00:19:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:30d9:a3ba:cef:60ff] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:a213:a300:ce80:30d9:a3ba:cef:60ff]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B79A53C; Sat, 7 Sep 2019 00:19:48 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G77)
In-Reply-To: <4246BC68-CD23-4D51-9E41-5812AAD5F3D4@employees.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2019 00:19:48 +0200
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, "spring@ietf.org" <spring@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0D67ABBC-1EEE-4C54-AB26-148A93A57C0F@steffann.nl>
References: <EDB1ACFD-3924-4599-B95D-D1FC6FF2425A@steffann.nl> <4246BC68-CD23-4D51-9E41-5812AAD5F3D4@employees.org>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/hXq1K2fzk5qb9ei7UnjUyMWNz0Y>
Subject: Re: [spring] Spirit and Letter of the Law (was: Question about SRv6 Insert function)
X-BeenThere: spring@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <spring.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spring/>
List-Post: <mailto:spring@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>, <mailto:spring-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 22:19:54 -0000

Hi Ole,

> Proposals are judged on their merits. 
> There is no protocol police. 

There is existing consensus, and changing that requires consensus on the changes. The onus is on those wanting the change, yet you demand the ones referring to the existing consensus to defend themselves. That is not their responsibility.

> These proposals are not moving as far as I can see. So what are you trying to achieve by getting your collective knickers in a twist now?

Seeing extremely bad precedent being set by a chair. Chairs have the responsibility to stand up for the consensus in their working group. Always. No matter their personal opinion. No matter who they work for. Always.

The discussion has been had, consensus has been reached. Requiring someone else to defend an existing consensus is disrespectful to the working group that worked towards that consensus.

Sander

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email